wm_audit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it declares the operation is read-only, promises no file movement or modification, specifies the JSON report format, and explains the missing-policy behavior ('reports that instead of failing'). This is strong behavioral disclosure beyond a bare summary.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the action and output shape, the second gives usage context, and the third clarifies safety and failure behavior. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what the report contains, when to run it, what it never does, and how it handles the missing-policy edge case. Nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single optional boolean parameter. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Run a read-only workspace audit.' It also specifies the exact output contents (paths, G1-G4 grades, cleanup state, anomalies), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling wm_clean by emphasizing that it never moves or modifies files.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit usage context: 'at the start of a session' and 'before planning any cleanup.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read-only framing and the no-modification guarantee make the boundary with cleanup tools reasonably clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.